Observer, the 2007-07-03 letter about Mr. P.

[Guest Guest]

I recall a few references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The most notable, for me, was in the short-lived topic called "I would like to teach in Kearny." That brief thread was hilarious, and each character, including FSM, pointed up the absurdity of the position being defended by Paszkiewicz's side.

Humor is a tool. In that instance, I thought it was used very well and very effectively. It's no ground for complaint that a person's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And who decides when a person's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule? There are those who believe that Matthew's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule. Tell me, is the abuse lumped on him justified?

When you ridicule, you back a person into a corner, make them defensive, alienate them, and make them lifelong foes. Hence the phrase, friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.

Without passing judgment on the merits of the atheism vs Christianity argument, you cannot, on the one hand, call someone delusional and ridicule his or her faith, and then on the other hand expect them to rally around you and support your Constitutional cause. Paul was careful to avoid ridicule - but a few of his other, quite vocal, supporters were not. And I really think that many who did not read with editorial scrutiny found him guilty by association and assumed that he was attacking religion. And I really think that it hurt the cause in the end.

So then, what utility was provided by the humor tool?

[Guest Guest]

To be fair, the atheists who have posted are expressing their views on religion in an appropriate forum. If they have a critique of religion, they have the right to express it. I do not subscribe to the notion that it's not OK to criticize a religion, notwithstanding the taboo against such criticism in our culture. Given the divisive history of institutional religion, they have a valid point, which is not to say that I agree with everything they've written.

That said, I agree that a calmer and more carefully reasoned approach to this subject on all sides would have been preferable to what occurred.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They certainly do have the right to criticize religion, and they certainly have the right to do it in any forum in which they please. However, actions have consequences which are, quite often, unintended.

I think that when the discussion (on both sides) was neither calm nor carefully reasoned, it poisoned the debate by associating support of the Establishment Clause with some of the more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum. And I think that many of the decent God-fearing folks in town (the silent majority, if you will) saw their religious beliefs, and support of your son, as being mutually exclusive.

[Guest Guest]

Matthew sensed that he could not trust Mr. Paszkiewicz, and told Mr. P so to his face in the principal's office on October 10. The basis for that belief was the fervency with which the teacher was pursuing his goals; obviously, this was not new behavior, and was clearly intended to advance the teacher's religion --- a systematic violation of the Constitution, not a mere slip of the tongue or accident. So Matthew's conclusion was based on sound evidence and solid reasoning.

Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz would not lie, but it was likely that he would, and Matthew could not take the chance, making this kind of accusation. The method (not a "tactic") was therefore the correct one to ensure preservation of the truth. The truth would not have been preserved in any other way. You can argue that Matthew did not "know" that, but in fact he did, to a reasonable likelihood --- we have a way of knowing that is intuitive; Matthew's instincts are excellent in this regard, he knows it from experience, and so do I. He also knew that he could not count on his classmates for support, and again he was absolutely correct; they continue to defend Mr. Paszkiewicz even with recordings, so imagine what they would say if there were none. Finally, as Matthew has explained many times, merely talking to Mr. Paszkiewicz might have stopped the behavior in that one class, but not in other classes where students may have been afraid to speak up; and if you doubt the basis for that fear, look at the harassment and abuse Matthew has endured. So you can look for holes in Matthew's reasoning, but throughout this entire episode, he has been correct EVERY TIME; the reasonable conclusion is that he knows what he is doing, perhaps more than any of the rest of us would have.

Finally, let's be clear that the "agenda" Matthew pursued was defense of the US Constitution, specifically separation of church and state. The radical right has set out on an agenda to infiltrate the public schools and destroy separation of church and state. This is an organized movement, and Mr. Paszkiewicz was clearly identifiable as being in favor of its goals, if not formally a part of it (which he may be). There was more at stake than what was going on just in that one classroom. So people can use value-laden words like "tactic" and "agenda," but then let's be honest about what is really at issue and at stake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So now we are talking about Matthew’s Spider senses tingling knowing Mr. Paszkiewicz was not going to tell the truth? So why couldn’t Matthew take a chance? If his preaching was so pronounced as you tend to lead people on here, then he would have done it again and again and again? Was this the one time that Matthew had to “catch” him? You and a limited few are the only ones calling him correct. All he had to do was approach the teacher. Supposing that he did lie, then he should easily been able to catch him again. But he wasn’t mature enough.

It is a tactic because Matthew was trying to promote a desired result. That is why he continued into the probing of the subject after the other students had stopped. It was his continual questioning knowing that the tape was running. The only thing that is at stake is that you are using this for your own agenda in your attempt for running for Congress. Your use of the word “I” in a all these topics are all too common.

As per the attached post from on of Paul’s supporters.

From : Foger

“Normally a DFA meeting is the first wed of the month, the March 7th meeting was postponed to the 14th, because of snow. Which worked out well, Paul Aronsohn, who ran for congress in NJ-05, against Scott Garrett ( & lost), attended. Paul is considering running again in '08.”

You talk about agendas. We all know yours.

Please tell me the last time that Mr. Paszkiewicz has brought up the religion issue. It has been a while so it should be dropped if not only for your personal agenda.

[Guest Paul]

Hi Paul - I've been away for several weeks, and I guess that I'm just a little frustrated that this forum is a time capsule - no matter how long you leave it, you come back and it's the same arguments.

But to my (and your) point, so I understand you correctly, essentially what you are arguing is that a "hunch" is sound evidence and solid reasoning enough to justify the recordings (speaking of the initial recordings - to which I was referring in the post).  And that is exactly my point. 

I'm not arguing that he wasn't right, nor am I arguing that he wasn't entitled to do so.  Instead, I am pointing out a flaw in another poster's argument in which the poster stated that the teacher's lie after-the-fact is justification to the initial recording.  And while you certainly can (and you do) make the argument that Matthew's belief that the teacher would lie - and not the teacher's lying - is the justification, you clearly cannot state that the actual lying was the justification.  It's a small point, granted, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

But that still brings us to the issue of when an action is justified based upon a "hunch".  When is it okay for a police officer to search a vehicle based upon a hunch?  There's certainly case law to that effect.  When is it okay for a principal to search a student's locker based upon a hunch?  That issue has been addressed (although not fully).  Violating the privacy of teachers, classmates and other students to rectify a Establishment Clause violation?  I think we're breaking new ground on this (which begs litigation for the establishment of precedent, but I sure hope it can be avoided).

It's the violation of privacy in this matter that I am - and have been - struggling with since the beginning.  And it's not just Mr. P's privacy, it's all the other students' privacy as well (including the Muslim student whose name was released).  So to be clear, the violations of privacy for all involved are the means, which are purportedly justified by the ends of stopping Mr. P from preaching in class.  And - although reluctantly - I can buy that in this instance (with the one unfortuate issue of the release of the Muslim student's name, which I am sure you would have corrected had you had it to do over again), I struggle with it.  But to those who are pinning you on the release of the student's name, I really believe that you would not have released the tapes if the Board had addressed this matter appropriately and in a timely fashion.

As a separate issue, you seem to have a semantical problem with the words "tactic" and "agenda".  Please understand that what is inferred is not always what is implied.  As to the use of "tactic" - whether you call it method, mode or otherwise, it is the means that Matthew used to advance his cause.  So, perhaps the implication is equivalent to the inference - but not with a negative connotation.  However, with respect to "agenda", I do not belittle in any fashion the cause for which Matthew is fighting.  And I think that the "silent majority" in this matter - myself included - should consider your position (believe what you want - just don't preach it in school) as compared to some of your more vocal counterparts (believe what I say and how I say it - and don't stop me from telling your kids what and how to believe too).

Lastly, I am curious as to how Matthew knew that the teacher was going to lie "from experience" - when has Matthew dealt with this issue before?  Or is there some other irrelevant context that doesn't need to be explored at this time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All points are well-taken. As a general response, life is loaded with judgment calls. I'm proud of the calls Matthew made. I know he made them for the right reasons. Not surprisingly, those who wish to defend this teacher at all costs will not accept that. There is, of course, a difference between a student recording a class and a principal searching a student's locker. Perhaps this episode will lead to the adoption of some sensible policies that protect all sides.

To your last question, Matthew sensed that he could not trust Mr. Paszkiewicz. This was based on the fervency and the zealotry in the preaching. The willingness of the exceptionally zealous to stop at nothing to achieve their ends is a main factor here. It was an entire constellation of factors. Matthew could explain it better than I can; after all, he was there, and made the call.

[Guest Paul]

And who decides when a person's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule?  There are those who believe that Matthew's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule.  Tell me, is the abuse lumped on him justified? 

When you ridicule, you back a person into a corner, make them defensive, alienate them, and make them lifelong foes.  Hence the phrase, friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.

Without passing judgment on the merits of the atheism vs Christianity argument, you cannot, on the one hand, call someone delusional and ridicule his or her faith, and then on the other hand expect them to rally around you and support your Constitutional cause.  Paul was careful to avoid ridicule - but a few of his other, quite vocal, supporters were not.  And I really think that many who did not read with editorial scrutiny found him guilty by association and assumed that he was attacking religion.  And I really think that it hurt the cause in the end.

So then, what utility was provided by the humor tool?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are good points. However, "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" pokes fun at beliefs. That is very different from ridiculing a person directly.

My only other point on this post: Reacting defensively is a choice. I've been attacked plenty, but have tried to remain open and avoid becoming defensive, sometimes succeeding perhaps and at other times not. When not, it was my failing. This is a central lesson from nearly every spiritual master who has ever lived, and was central to the teachings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Buddha, and implied by the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone has the same opportunity. For example, I saw Mr. Paszkiewicz and his family at this past Monday's Board meeting. He asked his children to unblock the doorway to auditorium so I could pass, and I exchanged a few brief words with his wife. There is no reason in the world why we cannot become friends with the Paszkiewicz's. In fact, after all this, I expect it. More important, God demands it. (Let our attackers figure that one out.)

[Guest Paul]

They certainly do have the right to criticize religion, and they certainly have the right to do it in any forum in which they please.  However, actions have consequences which are, quite often, unintended. 

I think that when the discussion (on both sides) was neither calm nor carefully reasoned, it poisoned the debate by associating support of the Establishment Clause with some of the more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum.  And I think that many of the decent God-fearing folks in town (the silent majority, if you will) saw their religious beliefs, and support of your son, as being mutually exclusive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points, but they imply an assumption: The majority rarely sees its own extremism. It is largely insulated from that view by its majority status. However, when we look at history from a distance, the majority is often extreme. (Consider slavery and all forms of religious oppression as examples.)

I'm not sure what you would classify as "extreme anti-religion views," but the observation that organized religion has sponsored a great many evils and led to many wars and much suffering is well supported by the historical record. The ways in which religion has been misused to suppress science is also well-documented.

What one believes is the best response to that history is another point, but I don't consider something extreme just because it vigorously challenges dominant ways of thinking. Quite often, exactly the opposite is true, and it is precisely because the majority does not see it that it becomes all the more extreme.

[Guest Paul]

So now we are talking about Matthew’s Spider senses tingling knowing Mr. Paszkiewicz was not going to tell the truth? So why couldn’t Matthew take a chance?  If his preaching was so pronounced as you tend to lead people on here, then he would have done it again and again and again?  Was this the one time that Matthew had to “catch” him?  You and a limited few are the only ones calling him correct.  All he had to do was approach the teacher.  Supposing that he did lie, then he should easily been able to catch him again.  But he wasn’t mature enough. 

It is a tactic because Matthew was trying to promote a desired result. That is why he continued into the probing of the subject after the other students had stopped.  It was his continual questioning knowing that the tape was running.  The only thing that is at stake is that you are using this for your own agenda in your attempt for running for Congress.  Your use of the word “I” in a all these topics are all too common.

As per the attached post from on of Paul’s supporters. 

From : Foger

“Normally a DFA meeting is the first wed of the month, the March 7th meeting was postponed to the 14th, because of snow. Which worked out well, Paul Aronsohn, who ran for congress in NJ-05, against Scott Garrett ( & lost), attended.  Paul is considering running again in '08.”

You talk about agendas. We all know yours.

Please tell me the last time that Mr. Paszkiewicz has brought up the religion issue. It has been a while so it should be dropped if not only for your personal agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have answered all of this many times. The teacher was out of control. His bosses and the public have every right to know how far he was willing to go. In fact, they would have every right to plant a student in the class to bait him. Some companies use exactly those techniques to train employees. Those who can't resist temptation or function under the gun don't work for that company. It's smart management, and a student has every right to take part in enforcing the rules and especially the US Constitution. Any kid might have been asking those questions. It's no defense to a statutory rape charge that the girl was exceptionally pretty (or the questions especially probing or inviting to answer). You just don't like the outcome.

Just today, CNN reported a story of a teacher in Oregon who was fired for preaching creationism in class, and dismissing evolution. That teacher also compared science to Hitler. Sound familiar? What Mr. Paszkiewicz did is part of a larger nationwide problem. People who do not believe in democracy (even though they think they do) are trying to infiltrate our public schools and insert their religion as the prime ruling force. They wish to use the Bible as a check on science. This is a large, organized movement, which threatens the integrity of our school system and the quality of education. If it is allowed, our schools will become breeding grounds for ignorance.

Telling us yet again that you think all is well because this teacher isn't doing it any more isn't going to change my answer. The response to this misconduct must send a clear and appropriate message. We will drop the matter when appropriate corrections are made.

[oneellama]

They certainly do have the right to criticize religion, and they certainly have the right to do it in any forum in which they please.  However, actions have consequences which are, quite often, unintended. 

I think that when the discussion (on both sides) was neither calm nor carefully reasoned, it poisoned the debate by associating support of the Establishment Clause with some of the more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum.  And I think that many of the decent God-fearing folks in town (the silent majority, if you will) saw their religious beliefs, and support of your son, as being mutually exclusive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would appreciate it if you gave a few examples of what you consider to be "more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum." I ask, would you put any of my current or past posts (including this one) in that category? What would qualify as a "more extreme pro-religious view espoused on this forum"?

I'd like to calibrate where you're coming from, particularly given that you follow up that "more extreme" phrase with a sentence that features "decent God-fearing folks." Christians often use that phrase as if there is an equal sign between "decent" and "God-fearing." The root of this whole issue in Kearny is that there was too much projection of the "God-fearing" part onto students in a public school, there continues to be too much protection of those doing it, and too much abuse going on against those with the guts to put it all out for Kearny and the rest of the world to confront. Perhaps the "silent majority" IF YOU WILL is those of us who find fear to be a pretty abominable basis for laying claim to "decent" moral behavior!!! This is precisely the kind of forum to raise that point of view. Hey, even if we're a MINORITY, maybe that makes it more important!

If those "decent God-fearing folks" of Kearny are finding their beliefs mutually exclusive with supporting Matthew, then JUST PERHAPS the discomfort they are feeling is a VERY GOOD THING and long overdue. Conciousness-raising rarely comes without discomfort. Forget "unintended" consequences -- let's go for intended. It's high time a lot of Christians did some real soul-searching about the impact of their self-righteousness, their arrogance, their prevailing attitude of superiority, and their pathological propensity to evangelize their views onto others, oblivious to -- or unaffected by -- any objections by the recipients. It's high time the "moderates" underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of "tolerance."

And please, dear readers, resist the temptation at this point to tell me to let go of my anger, and you will pray for me. Don't ask, "Why are some atheists getting so ANGRY?" Try reading Letter to a Christian Nation for a few clues, if the posts on this blog aren't sufficient.

I can speak directly to how this kind of thing plays out for a child. When I was in public school, one of my teachers held daily readings from the Bible, and went from student to student with the clear expectation that NO STUDENT WOULD DECLINE to read, though she gave lip service to it being an option. (Remember Mr. P.'s comment about whether anybody objected to the discussion, then he heads right back to eternal damnation?) Mine was a public school! I told my parents what was going on. We had some long, difficult discussions about whether to "go public" with the problem (occurring not just in my class, but in my siblings' as well). They did not, because of the risk of retaliation from our "decent God-fearing" neighbors. Did that teacher have support from the students? YOU BET! Did she have support from the parents? YOU BET! Sometimes they were THERE IN THE CLASSROOM! Did the vast majority of the people think she was a great teacher? YOU BET! So did the principal! Did that make her actions MORAL or LEGAL? She clearly believed the former, even if she ignored the latter!

My parents were NOT meek people -- -- they were realists, in a different decade. But that was THEN you say. Well, I've been in public school classrooms within the past two months where a teacher asked students to publicly identify their religion to their classmates. Wonderful for the majority, and maybe even for some of the minority, were they so inclined. But where is the recognition that this is inappropriate? A lot of us live in Kearny, in one form or another. Many, many Christians just don't get that, or they don't care. Well, maybe times are a-changin.

I've been reading this blog since the very beginning, and been an infrequent contributor since December. If you haven't yet done so, go back and read the initial threads, and see how this discussion has developed. Do a little comparison of the posts that legitimately responded to the legal and ethical issues raised by Mr. L. consistently from the beginning, versus the diversionary crap and hand grenades that came flying in, and still do with daily regularity.

I have to say, I've already been through "calm." In the face of what's flown on this site, I'm above my hip-boots with "calm." I've promoted "carefully reasoned" (check my old posts) -- and though you may disagree, I still do. But, by golly, after reading hundreds of posts, I think a little ill temper just might be justified. I'm amazed Mr. L. has stayed as conciliatory as he has. Yes, he's shown that "carefully reasoned" can still pack a punch, despite the spontaneous and outright hateful responses.

The REAL debate about the Establishment Clause can't be "poisoned" by either atheist or fundamentalist anger. It's in the legal record, for those willing to do the research, and it will play out in the courts -- as long as administrators like those at KHS and the BOE and teachers like Mr. P. shirk responsibility. Maybe not this time, not this episode. But, frankly, I now hope Mr. L. has the resources and the guts to add this case to that legal record. Slam the ACLU all you want; compare them to pedophile-apologists and Satanists; ultimately, the First Amendment gives Mr. L the right to have his grievances aired and considered, and if Mr. P, the administration, and the BOE don't get it, it comes down to the courts, not the anti-ACLU cranks. Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't. Either the court decisions of the past mean something, or they don't. Either we are honest with ourselves about how the Christian majority imposes its heelprint on our politics, our culture, and our freedoms, or we aren't.

And for those of you who are already typing your response (as many have already in one way or another here or in emails to me in the past), "We're a Christian nation. Look at our money. Look at our pledge. Look ar our Christian founders. Don't like it? Go somewhere else!" I say, I was born here. I'm raising my family here. This is my country, dammit, I'm not goin' anywhere. Keep your dogma out of my childrens' classrooms. Keep your prayers out of my face; if you want to babble them silently to yourself, go right ahead. Follow the obligations you have as public servants, or face the consequences in court, as long as our system has a breath of honesty left in it. These things are worth standing up for. That, to me, is patriotism. Go get 'em, Matthew. Go get 'em, Mr. L. And if you want some help, drop me an email. You inspired me to get out of the "viewer" category through this blog; I hope you do the same for others.

[Guest HSTwasZ]

Matthew sensed that he could not trust Mr. Paszkiewicz, and told Mr. P so to his face in the principal's office on October 10. The basis for that belief was the fervency with which the teacher was pursuing his goals; obviously, this was not new behavior, and was clearly intended to advance the teacher's religion --- a systematic violation of the Constitution, not a mere slip of the tongue or accident. So Matthew's conclusion was based on sound evidence and solid reasoning.

Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz would not lie, but it was likely that he would, and Matthew could not take the chance, making this kind of accusation. The method (not a "tactic") was therefore the correct one to ensure preservation of the truth. The truth would not have been preserved in any other way. You can argue that Matthew did not "know" that, but in fact he did, to a reasonable likelihood --- we have a way of knowing that is intuitive; Matthew's instincts are excellent in this regard, he knows it from experience, and so do I. He also knew that he could not count on his classmates for support, and again he was absolutely correct; they continue to defend Mr. Paszkiewicz even with recordings, so imagine what they would say if there were none. Finally, as Matthew has explained many times, merely talking to Mr. Paszkiewicz might have stopped the behavior in that one class, but not in other classes where students may have been afraid to speak up; and if you doubt the basis for that fear, look at the harassment and abuse Matthew has endured. So you can look for holes in Matthew's reasoning, but throughout this entire episode, he has been correct EVERY TIME; the reasonable conclusion is that he knows what he is doing, perhaps more than any of the rest of us would have.

Finally, let's be clear that the "agenda" Matthew pursued was defense of the US Constitution, specifically separation of church and state. The radical right has set out on an agenda to infiltrate the public schools and destroy separation of church and state. This is an organized movement, and Mr. Paszkiewicz was clearly identifiable as being in favor of its goals, if not formally a part of it (which he may be). There was more at stake than what was going on just in that one classroom. So people can use value-laden words like "tactic" and "agenda," but then let's be honest about what is really at issue and at stake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to be careful though Paul, For the private eyes around here beleive their own twisted delusions and no lie is to big for them to tell nor do they care how many people they get involved in their conspiracy to obtain other peoples monies. Sadly these scabs know they wont be charged for their crimes in this Town and you wonder why other Town's wont allow them to coach their children.

[Guest Paul]

So now we are talking about Matthew’s Spider senses tingling knowing Mr. Paszkiewicz was not going to tell the truth? So why couldn’t Matthew take a chance?  If his preaching was so pronounced as you tend to lead people on here, then he would have done it again and again and again?  Was this the one time that Matthew had to “catch” him?  You and a limited few are the only ones calling him correct.  All he had to do was approach the teacher.  Supposing that he did lie, then he should easily been able to catch him again.  But he wasn’t mature enough. 

It is a tactic because Matthew was trying to promote a desired result. That is why he continued into the probing of the subject after the other students had stopped.  It was his continual questioning knowing that the tape was running.  The only thing that is at stake is that you are using this for your own agenda in your attempt for running for Congress.  Your use of the word “I” in a all these topics are all too common.

As per the attached post from on of Paul’s supporters. 

From : Foger

“Normally a DFA meeting is the first wed of the month, the March 7th meeting was postponed to the 14th, because of snow. Which worked out well, Paul Aronsohn, who ran for congress in NJ-05, against Scott Garrett ( & lost), attended.  Paul is considering running again in '08.”

You talk about agendas. We all know yours.

Please tell me the last time that Mr. Paszkiewicz has brought up the religion issue. It has been a while so it should be dropped if not only for your personal agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our agenda is the Constitution and the quality of education. Inappropriate statements by a teacher should be corrected. That has not happened. Until it does, we will continue to pursue this.

For the gazillionth time, a teacher was completely out of control. Matthew caught him and provided undeniable proof. You just don't like the way it's working out.

[Guest Paul]

So now we are talking about Matthew’s Spider senses tingling knowing Mr. Paszkiewicz was not going to tell the truth? So why couldn’t Matthew take a chance?  If his preaching was so pronounced as you tend to lead people on here, then he would have done it again and again and again?  Was this the one time that Matthew had to “catch” him?  You and a limited few are the only ones calling him correct.  All he had to do was approach the teacher.  Supposing that he did lie, then he should easily been able to catch him again.  But he wasn’t mature enough. 

It is a tactic because Matthew was trying to promote a desired result. That is why he continued into the probing of the subject after the other students had stopped.  It was his continual questioning knowing that the tape was running.  The only thing that is at stake is that you are using this for your own agenda in your attempt for running for Congress.  Your use of the word “I” in a all these topics are all too common.

As per the attached post from on of Paul’s supporters. 

From : Foger

“Normally a DFA meeting is the first wed of the month, the March 7th meeting was postponed to the 14th, because of snow. Which worked out well, Paul Aronsohn, who ran for congress in NJ-05, against Scott Garrett ( & lost), attended.  Paul is considering running again in '08.”

You talk about agendas. We all know yours.

Please tell me the last time that Mr. Paszkiewicz has brought up the religion issue. It has been a while so it should be dropped if not only for your personal agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, this is funny. You think I'm running for Congress. Read your own quote again. Paul Aronsohn is running for Congress, I am not.

[Guest Guest]

And who decides when a person's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule?  There are those who believe that Matthew's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule.  Tell me, is the abuse lumped on him justified? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People have a right to say what they wish to say, but they are ethically bound (1) by the facts and (2) by a sense of priorities.

Mr. Paszkiewicz's defenders' priorities are to defend the teacher at all costs. Their methods include making false accusations against a minor with no apparent regard for the truth. They aren't even focused on the teacher's behavior. They can't.

By contrast, Matthew's priorities are defense of the US Constitution and the integrity of science and other education. His methods have at all times presented the facts. His unforgivable sin was doing it in a way that cannot be denied.

Cut through the nonsense, and the truth is obvious.

[Guest Guest]

So now we are talking about Matthew’s Spider senses tingling knowing Mr. Paszkiewicz was not going to tell the truth? So why couldn’t Matthew take a chance?  If his preaching was so pronounced as you tend to lead people on here, then he would have done it again and again and again?  Was this the one time that Matthew had to “catch” him?  You and a limited few are the only ones calling him correct.  All he had to do was approach the teacher.  Supposing that he did lie, then he should easily been able to catch him again.  But he wasn’t mature enough. 

It is a tactic because Matthew was trying to promote a desired result. That is why he continued into the probing of the subject after the other students had stopped.  It was his continual questioning knowing that the tape was running.  The only thing that is at stake is that you are using this for your own agenda in your attempt for running for Congress.  Your use of the word “I” in a all these topics are all too common.

As per the attached post from on of Paul’s supporters. 

From : Foger

“Normally a DFA meeting is the first wed of the month, the March 7th meeting was postponed to the 14th, because of snow. Which worked out well, Paul Aronsohn, who ran for congress in NJ-05, against Scott Garrett ( & lost), attended.  Paul is considering running again in '08.”

You talk about agendas. We all know yours.

Please tell me the last time that Mr. Paszkiewicz has brought up the religion issue. It has been a while so it should be dropped if not only for your personal agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is too much. Paul Aronsohn shows up at the same meeting with Paul LaClair. Paul Aronsohn is running for Congress. This idiot can't read, and decides Paul LaClair is running for Congress, and that the whole Paszkiewicz thing was Paul's set-up for a run for Congress. But Paul LaClair isn't running for Congress. Paul Aronsohn is. What a freaking idiot this "Guest" is.

[Strife767]

This is too much. Paul Aronsohn shows up at the same meeting with Paul LaClair. Paul Aronsohn is running for Congress. This idiot can't read, and decides Paul LaClair is running for Congress, and that the whole Paszkiewicz thing was Paul's set-up for a run for Congress. But Paul LaClair isn't running for Congress. Paul Aronsohn is. What a freaking idiot this "Guest" is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, yeah. *shakes head* It's amazing.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, this is funny. You think I'm running for Congress. Read your own quote again. Paul Aronsohn is running for Congress, I am not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh Paul, I have to say it... I was quite impressed with the amount of people that showed up in your defense at the last board meeting...I would say about 8 people? That's a good amount. How many from kearny? About 2 or 3. I am sorry that you tried so hard getting people's attention and inviting them to go. So sad.... do you know how many people Paszkiewicz had to beg to go to that meeting? None...and how many people showed up? about 150, the majority form Kearny...Sorry Paul, you will have to try something else...

[Guest Guest]

I would appreciate it if you gave a few examples of what you consider to be "more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum."  I ask, would you put any of my current or past posts (including this one) in that category?  What would qualify as a "more extreme pro-religious view espoused on this forum"?

I'd like to calibrate where you're coming from, particularly given that you follow up that "more extreme" phrase with a sentence that features "decent God-fearing folks."  Christians often use that phrase as if there is an equal sign between "decent" and "God-fearing."  The root of this whole issue in Kearny is that there was too much projection of the "God-fearing" part onto students in a public school, there continues to be too much protection of those doing it, and too much abuse going on against those with the guts to put it all out for Kearny and the rest of the world to confront.  Perhaps the "silent majority" IF YOU WILL is those of us who find fear to be a pretty abominable basis for laying claim to "decent" moral behavior!!!  This is precisely the kind of forum to raise that point of view.  Hey, even if we're a MINORITY, maybe that makes it more important!

If those "decent God-fearing folks" of Kearny are finding their beliefs mutually exclusive with supporting Matthew, then JUST PERHAPS the discomfort they are feeling is a VERY GOOD THING and long overdue.  Conciousness-raising rarely comes without discomfort.  Forget "unintended" consequences -- let's go for intended.  It's high time a lot of Christians did some real soul-searching about the impact of their self-righteousness, their arrogance, their prevailing attitude of superiority, and their pathological propensity to evangelize their views onto others, oblivious to -- or unaffected by -- any objections by the recipients.  It's high time the "moderates" underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of "tolerance."

And please, dear readers, resist the temptation at this point to tell me to let go of my anger, and you will pray for me.  Don't ask, "Why are some atheists getting so ANGRY?"  Try reading Letter to a Christian Nation for a few clues, if the posts on this blog aren't sufficient.

I can speak directly to how this kind of thing plays out for a child.  When I was in public school, one of my teachers held daily readings from the Bible, and went from student to student with the clear expectation that NO STUDENT WOULD DECLINE to read, though she gave lip service to it being an option. (Remember Mr. P.'s comment about whether anybody objected to the discussion, then he heads right back to eternal damnation?)  Mine was a public school!  I told my parents what was going on.  We had some long, difficult discussions about whether to "go public" with the problem (occurring not just in my class, but in my siblings' as well).  They did not, because of the risk of retaliation from our "decent God-fearing" neighbors.  Did that teacher have support from the students?  YOU BET!  Did she have support from the parents?  YOU BET!  Sometimes they were THERE IN THE CLASSROOM!  Did the vast majority of the people think she was a great teacher?  YOU BET!  So did the principal!  Did that make her actions MORAL or LEGAL?  She clearly believed the former, even if she ignored the latter!

My parents were NOT meek people -- -- they were realists, in a different decade.  But that was THEN you say.  Well, I've been in public school classrooms within the past two months where a teacher asked students to publicly identify their religion to their classmates.  Wonderful for the majority, and maybe even for some of the minority, were they so inclined.  But where is the recognition that this is inappropriate? A lot of us live in Kearny, in one form or another.  Many, many Christians just don't get that, or they don't care.  Well, maybe times are a-changin.

I've been reading this blog since the very beginning, and been an infrequent contributor since December.  If you haven't yet done so, go back and read the initial threads, and see how this discussion has developed.  Do a little comparison of the posts that legitimately responded to the legal and ethical issues raised by Mr. L. consistently from the beginning, versus the diversionary crap and hand grenades that came flying in, and still do with daily regularity.

I have to say, I've already been through "calm." In the face of what's flown on this site, I'm above my hip-boots with "calm."  I've promoted "carefully reasoned" (check my old posts)  -- and though you may disagree, I still do.  But, by golly, after reading hundreds of posts, I think a little ill temper just might be justified.  I'm amazed Mr. L. has stayed as conciliatory as he has.  Yes, he's shown that "carefully reasoned" can still pack a punch, despite the spontaneous and outright hateful responses.

The REAL debate about the Establishment Clause can't be "poisoned" by either atheist or fundamentalist anger.  It's in the legal record, for those willing to do the research, and it will play out in the courts -- as long as administrators like those at KHS and the BOE and teachers like Mr. P. shirk responsibility.  Maybe not this time, not this episode.  But, frankly, I now hope Mr. L. has the resources and the guts to add this case to that legal record.  Slam the ACLU all you want; compare them to pedophile-apologists and Satanists; ultimately, the First Amendment gives Mr. L the right to have his grievances aired and considered, and if Mr. P, the administration, and the BOE don't get it, it comes down to the courts, not the anti-ACLU cranks.  Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't.  Either the court decisions of the past mean something, or they don't.  Either we are honest with ourselves about how the Christian majority imposes its heelprint on our politics, our culture, and our freedoms, or we aren't.

And for those of you who are already typing your response (as many have already in one way or another here or in emails to me in the past), "We're a Christian nation.  Look at our money.  Look at our pledge.  Look ar our Christian founders.  Don't like it?  Go somewhere else!" I say, I was born here.  I'm raising my family here.  This is my country, dammit, I'm not goin' anywhere.  Keep your dogma out of my childrens' classrooms.  Keep your prayers out of my face; if you want to babble them silently to yourself, go right ahead.  Follow the obligations you have as public servants, or face the consequences in court, as long as our system has a breath of honesty left in it.  These things are worth standing up for.  That, to me, is patriotism.  Go get 'em, Matthew.  Go get 'em, Mr. L.  And if you want some help, drop me an email.  You inspired me to get out of the "viewer" category through this blog; I hope you do the same for others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for a wonderful post. You speak for a lot of people, most of whom either don't have the courage or won't take the time to speak out.

[Guest Paul]

Oh Paul, I have to say it... I was quite impressed with the amount of people that showed up in your defense at the last board meeting...I would say about 8 people? That's a good amount. How many from kearny? About 2 or 3. I am sorry that you tried so hard getting people's attention and inviting them to go. So sad.... do you know how many people Paszkiewicz had to beg to go to that meeting? None...and how many people showed up? about 150, the majority form Kearny...Sorry Paul, you will have to try something else... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the surprise? Fundamentalist zealotry has always attracted a crowd of committed followers. You never heard of a lynch mob? I read about a guy named Jesus who had some trouble getting popular support, too. I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I?

What impressed me about that meeting was Matthew's statement. The adults on both sides were getting heated. Matthew stepped up to the microphone and calmed the place down in about two minutes. Paszkiewicz and his supporters could have had the character and decency to applaud. He was speaking for them, too, and he was offering a means of reconciliation. They just didn't hear it.

There will be no reconciliation on the terms demanded by Paszkiewicz's fundamentalists. Reconciliation will have to be on terms that are acceptable based on basic human values.

[Strife767]

Oh Paul, I have to say it... I was quite impressed with the amount of people that showed up in your defense at the last board meeting...I would say about 8 people? That's a good amount. How many from kearny? About 2 or 3. I am sorry that you tried so hard getting people's attention and inviting them to go. So sad.... do you know how many people Paszkiewicz had to beg to go to that meeting? None...and how many people showed up? about 150, the majority form Kearny...Sorry Paul, you will have to try something else... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are aware that popular support would be nice, but is in no way necessary to enforce the Constitution, right? Paszkiewicz could have had a million supporters at the meeting, but he's still wrong, and he and the Board etc. are going to have to deal with it. You just watch what happens if they don't correct their mistakes while they still have the chance to do so without court mandate.

You're bragging about nothing, basically. All you're doing is highlighting the fact that apparently lots of people in Kearny are woefully ignorant of the Constitution. Is that your aim?

[Guest Guest]

Good points, but they imply an assumption: The majority rarely sees its own extremism. It is largely insulated from that view by its majority status. However, when we look at history from a distance, the majority is often extreme. (Consider slavery and all forms of religious oppression as examples.)

I'm not sure what you would classify as "extreme anti-religion views," but the observation that organized religion has sponsored a great many evils and led to many wars and much suffering is well supported by the historical record. The ways in which religion has been misused to suppress science is also well-documented.

What one believes is the best response to that history is another point, but I don't consider something extreme just because it vigorously challenges dominant ways of thinking. Quite often, exactly the opposite is true, and it is precisely because the majority does not see it that it becomes all the more extreme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I suppose I misspoke when I stated "extreme anti-religion views" by allowing extreme to be attached to the anti-religion. I know it got oneellama's knickers in a twist (funny how atheists and theists alike act so violently and - at times - irrationally when they perceive that their belief system is under attack).

To me, the "extreme" views to which I was referring were the insulting, nasty and, at best, insensitive, posts (and specifically referring to the tone of the posts) that a small handful of atheists made when referring to Christian beliefs (and yes, Virginia, it DID work both ways).

I think that it was these posts that kept many in the majority (I think the extremists in this matter are just a LOUD minority that has done a heckuva job marketing fear) from focusing on the Constitutionality of the debate. And I think that it has ultimately hurt your cause.

I know that it's not smart to be critical of one's supporters - but I'm sure that you've cringed on more than one occasion from people who have posted questionable sentiments purportedly on behalf of Matthew (... setting you up for the line, "not nearly as often as I've cringed from the posts supporting Mr. P).

[Guest Guest]

I would appreciate it if you gave a few examples of what you consider to be "more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum."  I ask, would you put any of my current or past posts (including this one) in that category? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, while not "extreme" I would characterize this post as unnecessarily defensive and, perhaps it's the hour, but somewhat incoherent. Unfortunately, you completely missed my point. I suppose this is the danger of a knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an antithetical opinion without taking the time to research it thoroughly. You also completely overthought a giddy old phrase ("decent God-fearing folks") which, if to anyone, should offend those who I would characterize as "decent God-fearing folks". And please take up your objections to "calm" and "carefully reasoned" with Paul - as those were his words (or did you not take the time to follow the thread back a couple of pages).

With your post, you PRECISELY proved my point. With a simple misunderstanding of a single poster, you were compelled to attack the "decent God-fearing folks" in town, as well as all Christians outside of the "decent God-fearing folks". You went on to threaten the Christians in town (the times they are a-changin?). Then you aligned your views with your support of Paul and Matthew (much to their chagrin, I'm sure). And I'm not sure that you advanced the debate one iota. Everything you've said has been said - both good and bad.

Accordingly, your post amounted to a rant - which is sad - but I am hopeful. I am hopeful because I really believe that after you blow off this steam, you will actually have something constructive to say.

Now, what say you that will advance this debate (preferably in a calm and carefully reasoned manner)?

[an American in Texas]

Oneellama, I agree, your post was very good indeed.

I have only one small nit to pick, and that's with "It's high time the 'moderates' underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of 'tolerance.'"

No kidding. But what do you think I'm doing here, if not this? They're not getting any support from me, tacit or otherwise. On the contrary, I'm here and elsewhere, posting and protesting away, giving money, and talking it up! And I've not been alone; in the last couple of days, for example, a new poster named Foger has joined me.

I do agree, however, that we moderate and liberal Christians have been indecently supine for far too long.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Supporter]

I would appreciate it if you gave a few examples of what you consider to be "more extreme anti-religion views espoused on the forum."  I ask, would you put any of my current or past posts (including this one) in that category?  What would qualify as a "more extreme pro-religious view espoused on this forum"?

I'd like to calibrate where you're coming from, particularly given that you follow up that "more extreme" phrase with a sentence that features "decent God-fearing folks."  Christians often use that phrase as if there is an equal sign between "decent" and "God-fearing."  The root of this whole issue in Kearny is that there was too much projection of the "God-fearing" part onto students in a public school, there continues to be too much protection of those doing it, and too much abuse going on against those with the guts to put it all out for Kearny and the rest of the world to confront.  Perhaps the "silent majority" IF YOU WILL is those of us who find fear to be a pretty abominable basis for laying claim to "decent" moral behavior!!!  This is precisely the kind of forum to raise that point of view.  Hey, even if we're a MINORITY, maybe that makes it more important!

If those "decent God-fearing folks" of Kearny are finding their beliefs mutually exclusive with supporting Matthew, then JUST PERHAPS the discomfort they are feeling is a VERY GOOD THING and long overdue.  Conciousness-raising rarely comes without discomfort.  Forget "unintended" consequences -- let's go for intended.  It's high time a lot of Christians did some real soul-searching about the impact of their self-righteousness, their arrogance, their prevailing attitude of superiority, and their pathological propensity to evangelize their views onto others, oblivious to -- or unaffected by -- any objections by the recipients.  It's high time the "moderates" underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of "tolerance."

And please, dear readers, resist the temptation at this point to tell me to let go of my anger, and you will pray for me.  Don't ask, "Why are some atheists getting so ANGRY?"  Try reading Letter to a Christian Nation for a few clues, if the posts on this blog aren't sufficient.

I can speak directly to how this kind of thing plays out for a child.  When I was in public school, one of my teachers held daily readings from the Bible, and went from student to student with the clear expectation that NO STUDENT WOULD DECLINE to read, though she gave lip service to it being an option. (Remember Mr. P.'s comment about whether anybody objected to the discussion, then he heads right back to eternal damnation?)  Mine was a public school!  I told my parents what was going on.  We had some long, difficult discussions about whether to "go public" with the problem (occurring not just in my class, but in my siblings' as well).  They did not, because of the risk of retaliation from our "decent God-fearing" neighbors.  Did that teacher have support from the students?  YOU BET!  Did she have support from the parents?  YOU BET!  Sometimes they were THERE IN THE CLASSROOM!  Did the vast majority of the people think she was a great teacher?  YOU BET!  So did the principal!  Did that make her actions MORAL or LEGAL?  She clearly believed the former, even if she ignored the latter!

My parents were NOT meek people -- -- they were realists, in a different decade.  But that was THEN you say.  Well, I've been in public school classrooms within the past two months where a teacher asked students to publicly identify their religion to their classmates.  Wonderful for the majority, and maybe even for some of the minority, were they so inclined.  But where is the recognition that this is inappropriate? A lot of us live in Kearny, in one form or another.  Many, many Christians just don't get that, or they don't care.  Well, maybe times are a-changin.

I've been reading this blog since the very beginning, and been an infrequent contributor since December.  If you haven't yet done so, go back and read the initial threads, and see how this discussion has developed.  Do a little comparison of the posts that legitimately responded to the legal and ethical issues raised by Mr. L. consistently from the beginning, versus the diversionary crap and hand grenades that came flying in, and still do with daily regularity.

I have to say, I've already been through "calm." In the face of what's flown on this site, I'm above my hip-boots with "calm."  I've promoted "carefully reasoned" (check my old posts)  -- and though you may disagree, I still do.  But, by golly, after reading hundreds of posts, I think a little ill temper just might be justified.  I'm amazed Mr. L. has stayed as conciliatory as he has.  Yes, he's shown that "carefully reasoned" can still pack a punch, despite the spontaneous and outright hateful responses.

The REAL debate about the Establishment Clause can't be "poisoned" by either atheist or fundamentalist anger.  It's in the legal record, for those willing to do the research, and it will play out in the courts -- as long as administrators like those at KHS and the BOE and teachers like Mr. P. shirk responsibility.  Maybe not this time, not this episode.  But, frankly, I now hope Mr. L. has the resources and the guts to add this case to that legal record.  Slam the ACLU all you want; compare them to pedophile-apologists and Satanists; ultimately, the First Amendment gives Mr. L the right to have his grievances aired and considered, and if Mr. P, the administration, and the BOE don't get it, it comes down to the courts, not the anti-ACLU cranks.  Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't.  Either the court decisions of the past mean something, or they don't.  Either we are honest with ourselves about how the Christian majority imposes its heelprint on our politics, our culture, and our freedoms, or we aren't.

And for those of you who are already typing your response (as many have already in one way or another here or in emails to me in the past), "We're a Christian nation.  Look at our money.  Look at our pledge.  Look ar our Christian founders.  Don't like it?  Go somewhere else!" I say, I was born here.  I'm raising my family here.  This is my country, dammit, I'm not goin' anywhere.  Keep your dogma out of my childrens' classrooms.  Keep your prayers out of my face; if you want to babble them silently to yourself, go right ahead.  Follow the obligations you have as public servants, or face the consequences in court, as long as our system has a breath of honesty left in it.  These things are worth standing up for.  That, to me, is patriotism.  Go get 'em, Matthew.  Go get 'em, Mr. L.  And if you want some help, drop me an email.  You inspired me to get out of the "viewer" category through this blog; I hope you do the same for others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, thank you for such an incredible post. This encompasses a lot of what I have been wanting to say for years. Your last paragraph was quite an inspiration to me as well. It's been awhile since I've seen something that was written so eloquently and still portrayed such a strong and desirable message. The quote about our children really got to me. You're right, of course. Our children should not be being continually infected with that crap. They are the ones with a future in hand, and they are the only ones who can affect the viewpoints of generations to come. Perhaps, if we are lucky, they will not be as blinded by the dogma (thanks for that wonderful word, by the way ) of religion as our my (our) generation was.

Keep saying what you're saying oneellama, because it speaks for a lot of people. Mr. L., I'm with you all the way. Thanks for the inspiration.

[Guest Paul]

Well, I suppose I misspoke when I stated "extreme anti-religion views" by allowing extreme to be attached to the anti-religion.  I know it got oneellama's knickers in a twist (funny how atheists and theists alike act so violently and - at times - irrationally when they perceive that their belief system is under attack). 

To me, the "extreme" views to which I was referring were the insulting, nasty and, at best, insensitive, posts (and specifically referring to the tone of the posts) that a small handful of atheists made when referring to Christian beliefs (and yes, Virginia, it DID work both ways). 

I think that it was these posts that kept many in the majority (I think the extremists in this matter are just a LOUD minority that has done a heckuva job marketing fear) from focusing on the Constitutionality of the debate.  And I think that it has ultimately hurt your cause. 

I know that it's not smart to be critical of one's supporters - but I'm sure that you've cringed on more than one occasion from people who have posted questionable sentiments purportedly on behalf of Matthew (... setting you up for the line, "not nearly as often as I've cringed from the posts supporting Mr. P).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, points well-taken, and arguments well stated. You surmised my reaction correctly.

[Strife767]

Wow, thank you for such an incredible post.  This encompasses a lot of what I have been wanting to say for years.  Your last paragraph was quite an inspiration to me as well.  It's been awhile since I've seen something that was written so eloquently and still portrayed such a strong and desirable message.  The quote about our children really got to me.  You're right, of course.  Our children should not be being continually infected with that crap.  They are the ones with a future in hand, and they are the only ones who can affect the viewpoints of generations to come.  Perhaps, if we are lucky, they will not be as blinded by the dogma (thanks for that wonderful word, by the way ) of religion as our my (our) generation was.

Keep saying what you're saying oneellama, because it speaks for a lot of people.  Mr. L., I'm with you all the way.  Thanks for the inspiration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Patriot]

Wow, thank you for such an incredible post.  This encompasses a lot of what I have been wanting to say for years.  Your last paragraph was quite an inspiration to me as well.  It's been awhile since I've seen something that was written so eloquently and still portrayed such a strong and desirable message.  The quote about our children really got to me.  You're right, of course.  Our children should not be being continually infected with that crap.  They are the ones with a future in hand, and they are the only ones who can affect the viewpoints of generations to come.  Perhaps, if we are lucky, they will not be as blinded by the dogma (thanks for that wonderful word, by the way ) of religion as our my (our) generation was.

Keep saying what you're saying oneellama, because it speaks for a lot of people.  Mr. L., I'm with you all the way.  Thanks for the inspiration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Incredible post" ?? If that impressed you, then my 2 year old recommends SpongeBob. He may put you in rapture. LOL